Skip to main content
Log in

Editorial delay of food research papers is influenced by authors’ experience but not by country of origin of the manuscripts

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Editorial delay, the time between submission and acceptance of scientific manuscripts, was investigated for a set of 4,540 papers published in 13 leading food research journals. Groups of accelerated papers were defined as those that fell in the lower quartile of the distribution of the editorial delay for the journals investigated. Delayed papers are those in the upper quartile of the distribution. Editorial stage is related to the peer review process and two variables were investigated in search of any bias in editorial review that could influence publication delay: countries of origin of the manuscript and authors’ previous publishing experience in the same journal. A ranking of countries was established based on contributions to the leading food research journals in the period 1999–2004 and four categories comprising heavy, medium, light and occasional country producers was established. Chi square tests show significant differences in country provenance of manuscripts only for one journal. The results for influence on editorial delay of cross-national research and international collaboration, conducted by means of the Fisher statistic test, were similar. A two-tailed Student’s t test shows significant differences (p<0.05) in the distribution of experienced and novel authors across the delayed and accelerated groups of papers. Although these results are time and discipline limited, it can be concluded that authors’ publishing experience causes a faster review and acceptance of their papers and that neither country of provenance nor cross-national research influence the time involved in editorial acceptance of the papers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anonymous (2008), Working double-blind: Should there be author anonymity in peer review? Nature, 451: 605–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amat, C. B. (2008), Editorial and publication delay of papers submitted to 14 selected Food Research journals. Influence of online posting. Scientometrics, 74: 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharjee, Y. (2004), Suit seeks to ease trade embargo rules. Science, 306: 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharjee, Y. (2003), U.S. license needed to edit iranian papers. Science, 302: 210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, J. L., Hakel, M. D. (2006), An Examination of Sources of Peer-Review Bias. Psychological Science, 17: 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H. D. (2006), Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: Effects of university prestige and field of study. Reseach Evaluation, 15: 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998A), Peer review for journals as it stands today — Part 2. Science Communication, 19: 277–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998B), Peer review for journals as it stands today — Part 1. Science Communication, 19: 181–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickersin, K., Olson, C. M., Rennie, D., Cook, D., Flannagin, A., Zhu, Q. et al. (2002), Association between time interval to publication and statistical significance. JAMA, 287: 2829–2831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diospatonyi, I., Horvai, G., Braun, T. (2001), Publication speed in analytical chemistry journals. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 41: 1452–1456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gannon, F. (2007), Address bias. EMBO Reports, 8: 421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2005), Refereeing and the single author. Journal of Information Science, 31: 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopewell, S., Clarke, M. J., Stewart, L., Tierney, J. (2007), Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, MR000011.

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (1998), Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA, 279: 281–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konradsen, J., Munk-jorgensen, A. (2007), The destinies of the low- and middle-income country submissions. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 115: 331–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfeldt, L. (2006), The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assesments. Reseach Evaluation, 15: 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. P., Boyd, E. A., Holroyd-leduc, J. M., Bacchetti, P., Bero, L. A. (2006), Predictors of publication: Characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Medical Journal of Australia, 184: 621–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. M. (1998), US and Non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280: 246–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H., Jayasinghe, U. W., Bond, N. W. (2008), Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63: 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health (2004), Scientific peer review of research grant applications and research and development contract projects. Federal Register, 69: 272–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opthof, T., Coronel, R., Janse, M. J. (2002), The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovascular Research, 56: 339–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rama, R. (1996), Empirical study on sources of innovation in international food and beverage industry. Agribussines, 12: 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovner, S. (2004), ACS ends limited publishing moratorium. Chemical and Engineering News, 82: 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiber, J. N., Kleinschmidt, L. A. (2008), Healthy foods research: A publication strategy to maximize impact. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56: 4283–4285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sood, A., Knudsen, K., Sood, R., Wahner-roedler, D. L., Barnes, S. A., Bardia, A. et al. (2007), Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60: 1123–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamm, T., Meyer, U., Wiesmann, H. P., Kleinheinz, J., Cehreli, M., Cehreli, Z. C. (2007), A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head and Face Medicine. Head and Face Medicine, 3, article.

  • Stern, J., Shimes, R. (1997), Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. British Medical Journal, 315: 640–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lange, P. A. M. (1999), Why authors believe that reviewers stress limiting aspects of manuscripts: The SLAM effect in peer review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29: 2550–2566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. J., Katz, P. P., Waeckerle, J. F., Callaham, M. L. (2002), Author perception of peer review: Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2790–2793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, A. C., Reviewers and Their Biases. In: Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (pp. 207–246), Melford: Information Today, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Shakiba, B., Mortaz-Hejri, S. (2006), Country development and manuscript selection bias: A review of published studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6: 37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfredo Yegros Yegros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yegros, A.Y., Amat, C.B. Editorial delay of food research papers is influenced by authors’ experience but not by country of origin of the manuscripts. Scientometrics 81, 367–380 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2164-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2164-y

Keywords

Navigation